Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[gallantwarrior]

All of us. No one can say that it is okay to discriminate against one group of people but not another, especially when neither minority are breaking any laws.

How would you like being forced into serving someone? Don't you like the idea of being able to control the machinations of your own business? Of course not Noomi, you'd rather the government tell you whom you can and WILL serve, under pain of financial ruin.

Do you think I should be allowed to refuse to serve people who are black?

What's up with the black shit? I believe the discussion is about homosexuals. Or do you have some deeply suppressed hostility against blacks? Or gays?

 

[martybegan]

Hey, it's just my opinion. I like the fact that there are laws preventing public businesses (as in a public golf course) from overtly refusing a customer a coffee because he/she is black, gay, or a woman. Note that private clubs CAN still overtly refuse membership to whomever they want.

I think this fosters good things, ultimately, and helps to break down some of the more visible and tangible segregation barriers that exist in our society.

.

I think it does the opposite. It allows racism to fester under the service, behind the tight smile of someone handing you a coffee and thinking you are a ****** at the same time.

All it fosters is resentment, and makes work for lawyers.

I realize covert racism is not a wonderful thing, but would you rather that person calling them "******" to their face and not handing them a coffee?

You pick...

.

It would definite make for an interesting scene.

It would be bad for a while, but in the end people's positions would be known.

 

[KevinWestern]

I am saying that the 'gay rights' crowd is now looking for protected status... forcing others to do services they want... and that is against the freedoms afforded to persons and businesses.. refusal to do business with is not the same as following pasteurization laws, cleanliness laws, etc

It's my understanding that if you're a photographer, or wedding planner, etc, you can refuse service to any couple you want. You don't have to plan someone's wedding if you don't want to, just because they called your number.

You might get in trouble if you say specifically you're refusing service because they're black, or because they're gay, but no one is forcing the vendor to cite a reason - am I correct?

And personally, I think that is wrong.. if you don't want to serve or provide service because someone is gay, or black, or white, or eskimo or polygamist or dressed like a penguin, it should not matter.. it is part of freedom... you have the freedom to be tolerant that goes hand in hand with the freedom to think like a bigot... and you then have the freedom to live with the business consequences of your actions... personally, I think it is a bad move to alienate in business.. but if someone has a strong religious or whatever other conviction and they don't want to serve gays, or if they want to have an all women;s club, or they want a tranny only nightclub with only tranny staff, SO BE IT

Now.. having government treat persons equally for government matters, THAT is to be something to strive for.. to use government to force others to accept or tolerate or to serve is quite another matter.. and I said all along, this was not merely about government benefits or taxation or equality in governmental treatment.. that the agenda was about forced acceptance.. and it is looking like I was spot on

Again, I respect your opinion, and in the hardcore Libertarian world I think your reasoning would be well received.

However, it's my personal opinion that a law that says a business can't deny a customer specifically because he/she is black - for example - only leads to good things. It means that business can no longer put up a "no blacks" sign in the windows, and means that a black man can travel anywhere in America and not have to fear being denied food, water, or housing due to skin color so long that he's a paying, respectable customer.

There's a lot to be said about Big Gov't butting in and creating unnecessary regulations that will hurt small businesses (while helping big businesses), etc, and I'm 100% against that sort of crony capitalist corruption.

However, this law is truly aimed at creating a more cohesive, respectable society and for that reason I stand behind it.

It brings blacks/whites together where the alternative will likely mean driving them apart in certain areas.

.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Do you think I should be allowed to refuse to serve people who are black?

Do you think an African-American photographer should be forced to take photos of a Ku Klux Klan event?

Good question. But a photographer is actually at the occasion - like a Christian photographer at a gay wedding. That is a lot different than simply baking a cake, and not witnessing the ceremony.

I personally think it should be illegal to be a member of a racist group, anyway.

Homosexual is not a race.

 

[Amelia]

Still would like someone to address the question of whether someone would be subject to a discrimination suit if they refused to provide services for a black supremacy group. Perhaps I should make that a separate thread.

From what I've read, it's okay to refuse services to a white supremacy group, because whites aren't a protected class ... but since blacks are a protected class, does that mean one must serve them no matter the context (as long as they aren't breaking laws, of course)?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Do you think I should be allowed to refuse to serve people who are black?

I think you should be allowed to serve whom you wish. Plain and simple.

Then you should put a sign on the window of your shop that states you won't serve black people, or gay people, and let the public make their choice - and they have the right to launch a boycott of your business, and attack your beliefs, if they so choose.

So if you are a prepared for your small business to go downhill, you will put that sign in your window.

Or you might just attract the support of people who feel the same way you do. I seem to recall Chi-fil-A making record profits for a while after the gays declared their intention to boycott and destroy that franchise.

 

[KevinWestern]

I think it does the opposite. It allows racism to fester under the service, behind the tight smile of someone handing you a coffee and thinking you are a ****** at the same time.

All it fosters is resentment, and makes work for lawyers.

I realize covert racism is not a wonderful thing, but would you rather that person calling them "******" to their face and not handing them a coffee?

You pick...

.

It would definite make for an interesting scene.

It would be bad for a while, but in the end people's positions would be known.

But here's my thought process Marty:

You end the covert racism, and end the "blacks only signs", and instead of having the fully legal segregation you're now having blacks coming into the store and buying coffee. The cashier might initially think the word "n**ger" in their head while handing over the coffee, but over time you're going to have a situation where both blacks and whites are interacting in a business setting and over time the covert racism will (hopefully begin to) dissipate.

It's my opinion that it's easier to break down racism by getting a black and a white in a room talking vs keeping them separated. Not sure if you've had a different experience, but this is mine.

At first, the two might hate each other, but after talking/interacting for a few hours they might find they have more in common than they think. My father can be quite overtly racist around just white folks, but that all seems to dissipate the moment he comes across a black person who does not fit those stereotypes that are set in his head and he finds himself in a pleasant conversation.

Does that make sense?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Fine, then should a baker have to make a cake for a Ku Klux Klan event? Or even for people they know to be Ku Klux Klan members even if they don't know what the event is.

Baking a cake wouldn't bother me - but if customers find out, the business could be harmed. I think racism is different, though.

As I said, if you don't want to serve a certain group of people, put a sign in your window stating this, but be prepared to suffer the consequences. Would business owners have the guts to do so, though?

You're being very bossy, telling people what they have to do with their property. "You must provide services for gay weddings or you must put a sign in the window declaring that you won't."

Of course she's bossy about what other people do with their property, she's a librul.

 

[bodecea]

I think you should be allowed to serve whom you wish. Plain and simple.

Then you should put a sign on the window of your shop that states you won't serve black people, or gay people, and let the public make their choice - and they have the right to launch a boycott of your business, and attack your beliefs, if they so choose.

So if you are a prepared for your small business to go downhill, you will put that sign in your window.

Or you might just attract the support of people who feel the same way you do. I seem to recall Chi-fil-A making record profits for a while after the gays declared their intention to boycott and destroy that franchise.

"for a while".

 

[gallantwarrior]

Baking a cake wouldn't bother me - but if customers find out, the business could be harmed. I think racism is different, though.

As I said, if you don't want to serve a certain group of people, put a sign in your window stating this, but be prepared to suffer the consequences. Would business owners have the guts to do so, though?

You're being very bossy, telling people what they have to do with their property. "You must provide services for gay weddings or you must put a sign in the window declaring that you won't."

It would save the trouble of the gay couple being offended when they are rejected - and they couldn't complain about not being served if they knew in advance.

Aww, we should be concerned that some fudge-packers get "butt hurt" when they are rejected? I'm not sure how you live your life, but Life is not all sweetness and light. Most every one of us has been "rejected" at some time, and most of us will suffer rejection again. Funny thing, though...we don't react by immediately hiring attorneys and filing some bullshit lawsuit that our feelings have been hurt because we have been unable to shove our ideology and choices down someone else's throat. I sure as hell would not want someone who disagrees with me being forced to do what I wanted, the results might be...less than optimal. But then, by the time they lawyer up, these "couples" are no longer wanting their cake, or photos, or whatever...they want to make bank and destroy someone who happens to disagree with them. A more honest approach would be to simply shoot the proprietor and burn the business to the ground, don't you think?

 

[DiamondDave]

It's my understanding that if you're a photographer, or wedding planner, etc, you can refuse service to any couple you want. You don't have to plan someone's wedding if you don't want to, just because they called your number.

You might get in trouble if you say specifically you're refusing service because they're black, or because they're gay, but no one is forcing the vendor to cite a reason - am I correct?

And personally, I think that is wrong.. if you don't want to serve or provide service because someone is gay, or black, or white, or eskimo or polygamist or dressed like a penguin, it should not matter.. it is part of freedom... you have the freedom to be tolerant that goes hand in hand with the freedom to think like a bigot... and you then have the freedom to live with the business consequences of your actions... personally, I think it is a bad move to alienate in business.. but if someone has a strong religious or whatever other conviction and they don't want to serve gays, or if they want to have an all women;s club, or they want a tranny only nightclub with only tranny staff, SO BE IT

Now.. having government treat persons equally for government matters, THAT is to be something to strive for.. to use government to force others to accept or tolerate or to serve is quite another matter.. and I said all along, this was not merely about government benefits or taxation or equality in governmental treatment.. that the agenda was about forced acceptance.. and it is looking like I was spot on

Again, I respect your opinion, and in the hardcore Libertarian world I think your reasoning would be well received.

However, it's my personal opinion that a law that says a business can't deny a customer specifically because he/she is black - for example - only leads to good things. It means that business can no longer put up a "no blacks" sign in the windows, and means that a black man can travel anywhere in America and not have to fear being denied food, water, or housing due to skin color so long that he's a paying, respectable customer.

There's a lot to be said about Big Gov't butting in and creating unnecessary regulations that will hurt small businesses (while helping big businesses), etc, and I'm 100% against that sort of crony capitalist corruption.

However, this law is truly aimed at creating a more cohesive, respectable society and for that reason I stand behind it.

It brings blacks/whites together where the alternative will likely mean driving them apart in certain areas.

.

Then you could go with the argument about discriminating against something genetic in humans.. blacks do not have a choice of race, a person with deformities does not have a choice about the deformities... and I could be persuaded with issues like that (except in the rare case like where you have a 900 pound man suing the airline for not having a seat that fits him and he sues for discrimination, etc)

This is not the case with the homosexual marriage argument and people discriminate against choices and behavior all the time... I will not stand behind laws that take that freedom away

 

[gallantwarrior]

Hello everyone!

I am interested to hear personal stories of the time(s) you were denied entry to an establishment or denied services by a business based on who you are.

Anyone?

I've been turned down for a couple of jobs.

 

[Seawytch]

I have the right to deny business to whomever I wish for whatever reason I wish. You didn't respond to my statement. I believe you should be able to serve whomever you wish without certain reprisals from one political group or another. You don't suggest I serve criminals intent on doing me harm do you?

No, actually you don't have that right.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye. [...]

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

• Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
• Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
• Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
• Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
• Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

Right to Refuse Service

Yeah I do, because I own that business, and under the 4th Amendment, I am allowed to be secure in my own property and effects. I can do with my property what I choose. So actually that doesn't tell all of the story.

Actual court cases prove you wrong.

 

[gallantwarrior]

lol, conservatives really come alive when they get the opportunity to stand up for their belief in the right to deny other people their rights.

And yet, you would deny a private business owner their rights. Pot, meet kettle...sheesh!

 

[Seawytch]

None of the arguments here have anything to do with legal marriage. The objections all have do with public accommodation laws. Good luck.

 

[KevinWestern]

And personally, I think that is wrong.. if you don't want to serve or provide service because someone is gay, or black, or white, or eskimo or polygamist or dressed like a penguin, it should not matter.. it is part of freedom... you have the freedom to be tolerant that goes hand in hand with the freedom to think like a bigot... and you then have the freedom to live with the business consequences of your actions... personally, I think it is a bad move to alienate in business.. but if someone has a strong religious or whatever other conviction and they don't want to serve gays, or if they want to have an all women;s club, or they want a tranny only nightclub with only tranny staff, SO BE IT

Now.. having government treat persons equally for government matters, THAT is to be something to strive for.. to use government to force others to accept or tolerate or to serve is quite another matter.. and I said all along, this was not merely about government benefits or taxation or equality in governmental treatment.. that the agenda was about forced acceptance.. and it is looking like I was spot on

Again, I respect your opinion, and in the hardcore Libertarian world I think your reasoning would be well received.

However, it's my personal opinion that a law that says a business can't deny a customer specifically because he/she is black - for example - only leads to good things. It means that business can no longer put up a "no blacks" sign in the windows, and means that a black man can travel anywhere in America and not have to fear being denied food, water, or housing due to skin color so long that he's a paying, respectable customer.

There's a lot to be said about Big Gov't butting in and creating unnecessary regulations that will hurt small businesses (while helping big businesses), etc, and I'm 100% against that sort of crony capitalist corruption.

However, this law is truly aimed at creating a more cohesive, respectable society and for that reason I stand behind it.

It brings blacks/whites together where the alternative will likely mean driving them apart in certain areas.

.

Then you could go with the argument about discriminating against something genetic in humans.. blacks do not have a choice of race, a person with deformities does not have a choice about the deformities... and I could be persuaded with issues like that (except in the rare case like where you have a 900 pound man suing the airline for not having a seat that fits him and he sues for discrimination, etc)

This is not the case with the homosexual marriage argument and people discriminate against choices and behavior all the time... I will not stand behind laws that take that freedom away

I hold the opinion that being gay is not a choice, as it's just the way some people are born. There's no possible way I could 'choose' to be physically attracted to another man in a sexual fashion; it just doesn't work for me as I am a straight male.

You can kick a gay man out of your grocery store if he's wearing a lewd outfit, or making out with his boyfriend, etc, I'm fine with that. They chose to behave that way and now should face the consequences.

But kick him out simply because he's gay (and that's it), I have no sort of qualm with a law prohibiting that sort of thing with regards to a public business.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, conservatives really come alive when they get the opportunity to stand up for their belief in the right to deny other people their rights.

And yet, you would deny a private business owner their rights. Pot, meet kettle...sheesh!

A private business that is open to the public may be private in its ownership but it is not private in its practice.

Let me ask you this:

New York State has a law against businesses that are public accommodations from refusing to do business with people because they are gay.

Is that unconstitutional?

 

[martybegan]

I realize covert racism is not a wonderful thing, but would you rather that person calling them "******" to their face and not handing them a coffee?

You pick...

.

It would definite make for an interesting scene.

It would be bad for a while, but in the end people's positions would be known.

But here's my thought process Marty:

You end the covert racism, and end the "blacks only signs", and instead of having the fully legal segregation you're now having blacks coming into the store and buying coffee. The cashier might initially think the word "n**ger" in their head while handing over the coffee, but over time you're going to have a situation where both blacks and whites are interacting in a business setting and over time the covert racism will (hopefully begin to) dissipate.

It's my opinion that it's easier to break down racism by getting a black and a white in a room talking vs keeping them separated. Not sure if you've had a different experience, but this is mine.

At first, the two might hate each other, but after talking/interacting for a few hours they might find they have more in common than they think. My father can be quite overtly racist around just white folks, but that all seems to dissipate the moment he comes across a black person who does not fit those stereotypes that are set in his head and he finds himself in a pleasant conversation.

Does that make sense?

it makes sense, but it still does not explain why we have to force people who's businesses are not part of any government program or action from doing what they please as a buisiness.

Forcing people to do ANYTHING they dont want to requires a compelling state interest, and having some photographer take pictures at a gay wedding he doesnt want to be at doesnt strike me as compelling.

It strikes me as the exact opposite of what those advocating gay marriage all along have been saying, that they dont want ACCEPTANCE, they just want the GOVERNMENT to recognize thier unions.

When you force someone to take part in something like thay, you are forcing acceptance, not tolerance.

 

[KevinWestern]

Hello everyone!

I am interested to hear personal stories of the time(s) you were denied entry to an establishment or denied services by a business based on who you are.

Anyone?

I've been turned down for a couple of jobs.

Whoever was handling the hiring, did they send you a note that you didn't get the job because because you weren't black/gay/etc?

Now I'm not just being a dick, I realize white folks are turned down from time to time because they are not black, etc.

However, I think the world aint perfect but at the end of the day (when you look at America overall) you're going to have a much easier time finding a job as a white male than any other group out there. Everyone faces discrimination at times, however white males face it the least on a macro perspective in the US.

Perhaps you hold a different opinion, but that's just mine..

 

[martybegan]

lol, conservatives really come alive when they get the opportunity to stand up for their belief in the right to deny other people their rights.

And yet, you would deny a private business owner their rights. Pot, meet kettle...sheesh!

A private business that is open to the public may be private in its ownership but it is not private in its practice.

Let me ask you this:

New York State has a law against businesses that are public accommodations from refusing to do business with people because they are gay.

Is that unconstitutional?

I dont see it as unconsitutional, I see it as wrong.

Things dont have to be unconsitutional to be wrong and stupid.